Answer

To Isaiah the Fourth (the Third is already taken), hello. If we had the power to conquer all the territory of the Land of Israel, it seems to me that there would be justification for it from every standpoint. Halakhically, certainly (see Rashi’s very first comment on the Torah). But morally as well, since this is our land, and the other nations that settled in it are fictitious nations who ought to go to the places they came from and stop bothering us. Legally, the question is not well-defined (because international law is nothing but agendas, nothing more). The commandment is to settle the entire Land of Israel, but the constraints of reality (and not moral considerations) currently dictate not doing so. Especially since the Jewish public today is not really committed to all this, and conquering the land is a commandment incumbent on the public, not on individuals.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Regarding the moral aspect, why do you see the other nations that settled in the land as “fictitious nations”? How are they different from the Swiss people who settled in Switzerland? Why is their (moral) right to their land different from the right of the Swedes to Sweden?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The difference is on two levels: 1. The Swedes already have a shared ethos. If only because they are more longstanding. 2. Sweden has no competing claims by someone with a better claim (as far as I know).
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Regarding 2, why do you think the Jews have priority (on the moral plane) over other ethnic groups (Palestinians/Syrians/Jordanians) with respect to the land?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, even if we do not have priority, here at least there is competition between two parties. Second, in my view we indeed do have priority, because we were here earlier and were exiled. For exactly the same reason that the Palestinians claim it belongs to them (because supposedly we expelled them). And I have not even mentioned the divine promise regarding the Land of Israel.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
 
Regarding the first point, if this were a case of two equal parties, then on grounds of symmetry one could also conclude that the Jews have no moral right to the Land of Israel.
 
 
 
Regarding the second point, true, we were here earlier, but the land came to us through conquest in the first place, so why should it matter who conquered first when determining a moral right?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
This is already starting to sound like pilpul. I did not say that when there are two parties no one has any right; I brought that up only as a distinction from the situation in Sweden. The land came to us through conquest, so when the Girgashite comes, we’ll talk to him. And besides that, the conquest was by divine command. Forgive me, but it seems to me we’ve exhausted the issue.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
According to your line of thinking, if theoretically one day the Native Americans were strong enough to reconquer the lands of the U.S., would you think they would be justified in doing so? Or would we say that once a certain status quo or international recognition of a given people’s ownership over a given territory has been established, any violation of the status quo, or infringement of that ownership, is a moral wrong.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, the Native Americans did not have a sovereign state. Therefore their claim by virtue of prior possession could apply to private property, but not to sovereignty. Second, if they had sovereignty, or a reasonable claim to sovereignty, then they indeed would have the right to reconquer it. International recognition is a matter of practice, not morality. Sometimes, practically speaking, the world prefers to give up legitimate rights and reward the aggressor.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Let us assume for the sake of discussion that the Native Americans really did have a sovereign state. Would that morally permit the French to conquer the lands of the U.S. (similar to the idea that one who steals from a thief is exempt)? Or do the Americans also have some right to the land (and if so, why), with only the Native Americans’ right being stronger than theirs.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
This requires further study, and there is no craftsman, nor the son of a craftsman, who can resolve it.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Please — I am neither a craftsman nor the son of a craftsman, and yet I will resolve it: what exactly is troubling him? If you say the first part is troubling him — what is different about the French, for whom it would be permitted, and the Americans, for whom it would be forbidden? Are the cases comparable? The French — conquering from a conqueror, the Merciful One permitted it; the Americans — conquering from the lawful owners, that is forbidden! But perhaps it is the second part that is troubling him — what is different about the Americans, who do have a right, and the French, who do not have a right? Are the cases comparable? The Americans gave birth to children and grandchildren in the land, while the French did not.